Subj : Re: Linux for desktop PC's
To   : rdlebreton
From : Mike PA7XG
Date : Thu Aug 12 2004 02:53 pm

Dear readers,

Over the past few years, I have had three versions of
Linux, from three different distributors. They were
all a pain in the butt. None of them ever worked properly.
The biggest hassle for an isolated home-user was caused 
by three things things:
-- poor documentation;
-- the Berkley dionosaur (lprint)
-- internet software that didn't work. 

A blatant example of the staTE OF THINGS was the reply 
from one distro's helpdesk which referred me to the manual, 
which (after some days of agro and investigation) was found 
to contain an error which was the root of the problem.
(a parport number assignment) 

IMHO there is a growing need for an "entry level" or
"tutorial level" installation option with each or any
distribution. This allows the newcomer to get a simple
system up and flying i.e. he can print a document, log 
on to internet and, with the textbook in his hand, 
familiarise himself with the workings of a unix system.

I believe that Win-XP is making more enemies than friends
and this is the time to get moving, if you want to bring
linux to a wider public.

Are there any takers out there in RedHat or Suse or
Slackware?

Mike Perry,
-----------

rdlebreton wrote:
> 
> One thing that I think is lacking in the push for popularity of Linux
> on desktop PC's is the fact that there are too many distro's of Linux.
> 
> If there were a 'vanilla', generic, 'ANSI Linux' that was an
> amalgamation of Red Hat, SuSE, IBM (whatever they wanted to
> contribute), Novell (whatever they wanted to contribute), etc.  or
> even a real nice, marketed-to-hell, Debian/GNU type would be a good
> start.
> 
> This generic version could then be marketed or pushed to be associated
> with PC's as much at the name 'Windows'.
> 
> Comments?

.